Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kodos wrote:

Lance845 wrote:
Oh yeah, and the removal of alpha strikes. A single activation can only cause the damage a single unit could cause. Not an entire army of shooting before you get to do anything.

Because you keep phases, do not change point cost and don't want to rework the fractions rules, alpha strike is still there.
You know the Tau formation which allows to the whole army the shoot as one unit in the shooting phase? The rule is still there and not banned by alternate activation but much stronger. the same for 12" Overwatch.

There is no reason why each units activation could not follow the 4 phases. It is just the current system with more tactical choices in terms of who you activate when,

More tactical choices for some lists while other are much weaker.
Each and every unit which can do stuff in different phase will become much stronger (running in the shooting phase and still be able to shoot, move in the assault phase etc) while units which are limited to a strict move/shoot/charge become weaker because stuff like combined attack (ranged or melee) to remove a single enemy unit is gone.

The result will be that strong fractions like Eldar or Tau will become stronger while already weak fractions will become weaker

So minor changes will not solve anything without changing the codex rules.
You are adding only a more complicated system on top of an already overcomplicated rule set

That tau formation, it would work like this, either 1) you move units and don't shoot to get them into position to shoot all at once at a later activation (basically placing them on overwatch to (hold their shooting), allowing the enemy to keep activating and shooting at you while you get ready or 2) you have them shoot before they activate meaning when they do eventually activate they can no longer shoot on their own activation. I don't see either one being a massive advantage just an interesting tool. Strike to early the enemy hasn't advanced enough to be targeted effectively and your units have not advanced enough to get into position. Activate too late and the enemy has more chances to tie up units in assaults and whittle you down with their own shots.

Each unit can still only shoot once a turn. Sharing marker lights and other bonuses at the cost of watching the enemy clip you down or advance to Los blocking positions... It's just another tool. A good one. A potentially powerful one. But not one without drawbacks. Again, each unit participating must still fire at a single enemy unit. While the one unit might be decimated its not the same as having several units crippling several units before they get to act at all.

In an alternate unit activation system for 40k you could remove the game breaking effect of msu by activating the same proportion of units rather than just taking turns. For example, if one army has twice the number of unitsas the other the large one activates treo units each time, paired by relative points cost (highest point unit and lowest point unit together, etc.)

Where the divide is not so clean, say one army has 9 units and the other has 13, then the extras for would be paired, so one activation might be a more expensive unit or the two lowest point units.

I like the idea of alternating like this as it allows constant participation. Rather than waiting for the opponent to do everything before taking a turn, it all flows together better.

Conversely, try a game of chess where your turn involves you moving every piece once and see how much fun the game is then.

I'd like it if they did it warmahordes style. Each unit can do one thing on the players turn (move, shoot, psychic or assault) with a pushing penalty system. Ok these marines shot their guns but I also want them to assault, take a leadership check @ 3 D6 to see if they can or else they go to ground. Not a bad idea.

Everyone is over-thinking this. Go out and actually try some alternating activation games. Heck, just grab a friend and try alternating unit activations in 40k, with each unit completing all phases. I've tried it, and it works pretty well straight away, although individual rules need tweaking or examining.

Like that Tau formation rule, that probably needs play-testing. But even then, I know some people's knee jerk reaction seems to be "omg, it would be like one big strong unit, that isn't fair", but that isn't inherently unfair either.

Disparate numbers of activations and varying unit strength are a given in every alternating activation game. Managing them both during list building and during the game is part of the decision-making process. Choosing between high activation count and units with high strength/staying power is part of the balance you strike. Deciding what to activate when is half the point of alternating activation war games.

So there's no need to unnecessarily hamstring things by adding a lot of complex rules about pairing units up etc. And if it turns out there is an issue after converting 40k this way, it's better to adjust things with a light hand. You want balance to be emergent from the system rather than forced.

One thing I might suggest is that the player with the lower unit count chooses whether to activate first or second at the top of each turn. In my experience this is a big boon, I wouldn't even implement it unless there seemed to be a big problem with MSU after playing enough for a local meta to emerge.

Another issue is reworking 40k's absolutely abysmal mission system. My friends and I have basically stolen the tournament mission from Epic: Armageddon and it works well.

The only problem with alternating unit activation is you still get some models performing multiple actions, while others stand still and watch.
And then some one WILL say '...we should have over watch...(And you have not gained any benifit over Alternating game turn!)'

Alternating phases, only lets EQUAL SIZED FORCES take ONE ACTION.It is inherently more balanced as only one action is taken before the opponent responds.

It lets your opponent react after every action!

Think of it as watching a battle in real time , but you look at one side to see what they do, them look at the other side to see what they did in the same period of time.

And alternating phases is MUCH easier to keep track of, and balance and explain.
And is only 1 step out of 3 for fixing the alpha strike problem.

Having used both types of game turn in 40k re-writes over the last decade or so, I know which is more elegant ....

Your post is so strange, I don't believe we can possibly be taking about the same thing.

How is alternating phases inherently balanced? How does it address alpha strike at all? Player 1 does all of their shooting before Player 2. Player 2 has to weather an entire army's worth of shooting before they respond. A significant fraction of Player 2's force is now dead without dealing any damage.

And Player 2 can't even move to reposition for shooting after Player 1, so if they want to be in firing positions, they have fewer options to avoid being shot than they currently do in 40k (where at least they can deploy out of range or out of sight, then repositon during their turn).

Alternating phases makes alpha strikes *worse*. There's nothing inherently balanced about one army taking all of their shooting actions before their opponent, and I have no idea why you would say this.

By the same token, there's nothing unduly unbalanced about letting one small fraction (one unit) of an opponent's force move, shoot, and assault, then responding in kind. Unless you use a system where casualties aren't removed until the end of the entire phase, one person always has to deal damage first.

Alternating a single unit at a time is by definition the smallest increment you could take turns in. Saying "but it's not fair, that unit moved, shot, AND assaulted while I just sat here!" seems like a bizarrely juvenile way of looking at things, especially when your alternative means getting the snot shot out of you by an entire army while you sit there doing nothing.

And adding the ability to put a unit on Overwatch doesn't undo the benefits of alternating activation. If it's well implemented, it's a tactical tool with pluses and minuses: it costs you your activation and is less effective shooting, but it gives an even further level of interaction between units to keep one side from making moves unanswered. It's the *exact opposite* of I-Go-U-Go. I have no idea why you would think it undoes the benefits of alternating activation, so I'd like to hear your reasoning...

I guess I seriously don't understand your thought process or your priorities. Either you have some strange ideas about what's balanced, or I'm fundamentally misunderstanding what you mean by "Alternating Phases."

Edit: By the way, I've also tried both alternating phases and alternating Activation in 40k. Alternating Activation works just as well as it does in every other game it's used in, like Dropzone Commander and Epic. Alternating phases was a giant mess that didn't seem to solve any problems except player downtime, and it's no surprise to me that it isn't used in any modern sci of games I'm familiar with, except in a fairly convoluted form in the defunct Starship Troopers game.

In the end go with what your group likes, but it's a pretty weird decision if you ask me.


Edit 2: Now that I think about it more, not removing casualties until the end of the shooting phase, like after both players are done shooting, resolves 90% of the issues I have with alternating phases. It would probably work well. Something to think about maybe? Anyway not trying to be harsh, I've seen some other posts and I like some of your ideas. In the end it's whatever works for you.